Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T21:46:12.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - Development of Qualitative Thinking

Language and Categorization

from Subpart II.2 - Childhood and Adolescence: The Development of Human Thinking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2022

By
Susan A. Gelman
Edited by
Olivier Houdé  and
Grégoire Borst
Olivier Houdé
Affiliation:
Université de Paris V
Grégoire Borst
Affiliation:
Université de Paris V
Get access

Summary

This chapter examines the role of language in children’s categorization. Children categorize every time they treat discriminably different items as in some way the same. A nine-month-old tosses a foam ball, a round candle, and American football, treating them all as throwable objects. A toddler points to a cow and calls it a “dog,” treating all four-legged mammals as somehow alike. A three-year-old wisely observes, “Butterflies have bones,” making a general claim about the abstract set of butterflies. Categories organize human experience, provide the building blocks of thought, and operate on every sort of content: objects, persons, events, mental states, abstract ideas, and logical elements.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Development , pp. 341 - 360
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adrián, J., Clemente, R., & Villanueva, L. (2007). Mothers’ use of cognitive state verbs in picturebook reading and the development of children’s understanding of mind: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 78, 1052–1067.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anggoro, F. K., Waxman, S. R., & Medin, D. L. (2008). Naming practices and the acquisition of key biological concepts: Evidence from English and Indonesian. Psychological Science, 19, 314–319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arthur, A. E., Bigler, R. S., Liben, L. S., Gelman, S. A., & Ruble, D. N. (2008). Gender stereotyping and prejudice in young children: A developmental intergroup perspective. In Levy, S. R., & Killen, M. (eds.), Intergroup Attitudes and Relations in Childhood through Adulthood (pp. 66–86). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Astuti, R., Solomon, G. A., & Carey, S. (2004). Constraints on conceptual development: A case study of the acquisition of folkbiological and folksociological knowledge in Madagascar. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 69, 1–13.Google Scholar
Atran, S. (1998). Folk biology and the anthropology of science: Cognitive universals and cultural particulars. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 547–569.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Austin, K., Theakston, A., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2014). Young children’s understanding of denial. Developmental Psychology, 50, 2061–2070.Google Scholar
Baldwin, D. A., Markman, E. M., & Melartin, R. L. (1993). Infants’ ability to draw inferences about nonobvious object properties: Evidence from exploratory play. Child Development, 64, 711–728.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Banaji, M. R., & Gelman, S. A. (eds.) (2013). Navigating the Social World: What Infants, Children, and Other Species Can Teach Us. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bastian, B., & Haslam, N. (2007). Psychological essentialism and attention allocation: Preferences for stereotype-consistent versus stereotype-inconsistent information. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 531–541.Google Scholar
Bergelson, E., & Swingley, D. (2012). At 6–9 months, human infants know the meanings of many common nouns. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 109, 3253–3258.Google Scholar
Bian, L., Leslie, S. J., & Cimpian, A. (2017). Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests. Science, 355, 389–391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowerman, M. (2005). Why can’t you “open” a nut or “break” a cooked noodle? Learning covert object categories in action word meanings. In Gershkoff-Stowe, L., & Rakison, D. H. (eds.). Building Object Categories in Developmental Time (pp. 227–262). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M., & Choi, S. (2001). Shaping meanings for language: Universal and language-specific in the acquisition of spatial semantic categories. In Levinson, S. C., & Bowerman, M. (eds.), Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development (No. 3, pp. 475–511). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brandone, A. C., Cimpian, A., Leslie, S. J., & Gelman, S. A. (2012). Do lions have manes? For children, generics are about kinds rather than quantities. Child Development, 83, 423–433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brandone, A. C., Gelman, S. A., & Hedglen, J. (2015). Children’s developing intuitions about the truth conditions and implications of novel generics versus quantified statements. Cognitive Science, 39, 711–738.Google Scholar
Casasola, M., & Ahn, Y. A. (2018). What develops in infants’ spatial categorization? Korean infants’ categorization of containment and tight‐fit relations. Child Development, 89, e382–e396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chouinard, M. M. (2007). Children’s questions: A mechanism for cognitive development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 72, vii–ix, 1–112.Google Scholar
Cimpian, A., Brandone, A. C., & Gelman, S. A. (2010). Generic statements require little evidence for acceptance but have powerful implications. Cognitive Science, 34, 1452–1482.Google Scholar
Cimpian, A., & Markman, E. M. (2009). Information learned from generic language becomes central to children’s biological concepts: Evidence from their open-ended explanations. Cognition, 113, 14–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cimpian, A., & Salomon, E. (2014). The inherence heuristic: An intuitive means of making sense of the world, and a potential precursor to psychological essentialism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37, 461–480.Google Scholar
Cimpian, A., & Steinberg, O. D. (2014). The inherence heuristic across development: Systematic differences between children’s and adults’ explanations for everyday facts. Cognitive Psychology, 75, 130–154.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1992). Conventionality and contrast: Pragmatic principles with lexical consequences. In Kittay, E. F., & Lehrer, A. (eds.), Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization (pp. 171–188). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (2005). Meaning: Development. In Brown, K. (gen. ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd ed., article 0840, pp. 577–584). London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Coley, J. D. (2012). Where the wild things are: Informal experience and ecological reasoning. Child Development, 83, 992–1006.Google Scholar
Danovitch, J. H., & Keil, F. C. (2004). Should you ask a fisherman or a biologist?: Developmental shifts in ways of clustering knowledge. Child Development, 75, 918–931.Google Scholar
Davidson, N. S., & Gelman, S. A. (1990). Inductions from novel categories: The role of language and conceptual structure. Cognitive Development, 5, 151–176.Google Scholar
de Villiers, J. G., & de Villiers, P. A. (2014). The role of language in theory of mind development. Topics in Language Disorders, 34, 313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeJesus, J. M., Hwang, H. G., Dautel, J. B., & Kinzler, K. D. (2017). Bilingual children’s social preferences hinge on accent. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 164, 178–191.Google Scholar
del Río, M. F., & Strasser, K. (2011). Chilean children’s essentialist reasoning about poverty. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29, 722–743.Google Scholar
Dewar, K., & Xu, F. (2007). Do 9-month-old infants expect distinct words to refer to kinds? Developmental Psychology, 43, 1227–1238.Google Scholar
Diesendruck, G. (2013). Essentialism: The development of a simple, but potentially dangerous, idea. In Banaji, M. R., & Gelman, S. A. (eds.), Navigating the Social World: What Infants, Children, and Other Species Can Teach Us (pp. 263–268). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Diesendruck, G., Goldfein-Elbaz, R., Rhodes, M., Gelman, S. A., & Neumark, N. (2013). Cross-cultural differences in children’s beliefs about the objectivity of social categories. Child Development, 84, 1906–1917.Google Scholar
Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. Oxfordshire: Routledge and Keegan Paul.Google Scholar
Feiman, R., Carey, S., & Cushman, F. (2015). Infants’ representations of others’ goals: Representing approach over avoidance. Cognition, 136, 204–214.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. (1975). Toward a characterization of English foreigner talk. Anthropological Linguistics, 17, 1–14.Google Scholar
Fisher, A. V., Godwin, E. K., & Matlen, B. (2015). Development of inductive generalization with familiar categories. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1149–1173.Google Scholar
Frank, M. C., Everett, D. L., Fedorenko, E., & Gibson, E. (2008). Number as a cognitive technology: Evidence from Pirahã language and cognition. Cognition, 108, 819–824.Google Scholar
Frazier, B. N., Gelman, S. A., & Wellman, H. M. (2009). Preschoolers’ search for explanatory information within adult–child conversation. Child Development, 80, 1592–1611.Google Scholar
Frazier, B. N., Gelman, S. A., & Wellman, H. M. (2016). Young children prefer and remember satisfying explanations. Journal of Cognition and Development, 17, 718–736.Google Scholar
Gelman, S. A. (2003). The Essential Child: Origins of Essentialism in Everyday Thought. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gelman, S. A. (2004). Psychological essentialism in children. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 404–409.Google Scholar
Gelman, S. A. (2009). Learning from others: Children’s construction of concepts. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 115–140.Google Scholar
Gelman, S. A. (2010). Generics as a window onto young children’s concepts. In Pelletier, F. J. (ed.), Kinds, Things, and Stuff: The Cognitive Side of Generics and Mass Terms (New Directions in Cognitive Science, v. 12, pp. 100–121). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gelman, S. A., & Bloom, P. (2007). Developmental changes in the understanding of generics. Cognition, 105, 166–183.Google Scholar
Gelman, S. A., & Coley, J. D. (1990). The importance of knowing a dodo is a bird: Categories and inferences in 2-year-old children. Developmental Psychology, 26, 796–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, S. A., Coley, J. D., Rosengren, K., Hartman, E., & Pappas, A. (1998). Beyond labeling: The role of maternal input in the acquisition of richly-structured categories. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Serial No. 253, 63, 1–157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, S. A., & Davidson, N. S. (2013). Conceptual influences on category-based induction. Cognitive Psychology, 66, 327–353.Google Scholar
Gelman, S. A., & Markman, E. M. (1986). Categories and induction in young children. Cognition, 23, 183–209.Google Scholar
Gelman, S. A., & Markman, E. M. (1987). Young children’s inductions from natural kinds: The role of categories and appearances. Child Development, 58, 1532–1541.Google Scholar
Gelman, S. A., & Rhodes, M. (2012). “Two-thousand years of stasis”: How psychological essentialism impedes evolutionary understanding. In Rosengren, K. S., Brem, S., Evans, E. M., & Sinatra, G. (eds.), Evolution Challenges: Integrating Research and Practice in Teaching and Learning about Evolution (pp. 3–21). Cambridge: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gelman, S. A., & Roberts, S. O. (2017). How language shapes the cultural inheritance of categories. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 114, 7900–7907.Google Scholar
Gelman, S. A., Taylor, M G., Nguyen, S. P., Leaper, C., & Bigler, R. S. (2004). Mother–child conversations about gender: Understanding the acquisition of essentialist beliefs. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 69, i–142.Google Scholar
Gelman, S. A., Ware, E. A., & Kleinberg, F. (2010). Effects of generic language on category content and structure. Cognitive Psychology, 61, 273–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, S. A., Wilcox, S. A., & Clark, E. V. (1989). Conceptual and lexical hierarchies in young children. Cognitive Development, 4, 309–326.Google Scholar
Gobbo, C., & Chi, M. (1986). How knowledge is structured and used by expert and novice children. Cognitive Development, 1, 221–237.Google Scholar
Gopnik, A., & Sobel, D. M. (2000). Detecting blickets: How young children use information about novel causal powers in categorization and induction. Child Development, 71, 1205–1222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graham, S. A., Kilbreath, C. S., & Welder, A. N. (2004). Thirteen‐month‐olds rely on shared labels and shape similarity for inductive inferences. Child Development, 75, 409–427.Google Scholar
Gunderson, E. A., Gripshover, S. J., Romero, C., Dweck, C. S., Goldin‐Meadow, S., & Levine, S. C. (2013). Parent praise to 1‐to 3‐year‐olds predicts children’s motivational frameworks 5 years later. Child Development, 84, 1526–1541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustafsson, Å. (1979). Linnaeus’ peloria: The history of a monster. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 54, 241–248.Google Scholar
Harris, P. L., Koenig, M. A., Corriveau, K. H., & Jaswal, V. K. (2018). Cognitive foundations of learning from testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 251–273.Google Scholar
Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2000). Essentialist beliefs about social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 113–127.Google Scholar
Henderson, A. M., & Woodward, A. L. (2012). Nine-month-old infants generalize object labels, but not object preferences across individuals. Developmental Science, 15, 641–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollander, J. H., Holyoak, K. J., Nisbett, R. E., & Thagard, P. R. (1986). Induction: Processes of Inference. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Horton, M. S., & Markman, E. M. (1980). Developmental differences in the acquisition of basic and superordinate categories. Child Development, 51, 708–719.Google Scholar
Inagaki, K. (1990). The effects of raising animals on children’s biological knowledge. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, 119–129.Google Scholar
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1964). The Early Growth of Logic in the Child. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Jaswal, V. K., Lima, O. K., & Small, J. E. (2009). Compliance, conversion, and category induction. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 102, 182–195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaswal, V. K., & Markman, E. M. (2007). Looks aren’t everything: 24-month-olds’ willingness to accept unexpected labels. Journal of Cognition and Development, 8, 93–111.Google Scholar
Keates, J., & Graham, S. A. (2008). Category markers or attributes: Why do labels guide infants’ inductive inferences? Psychological Science, 19, 1287–1293.Google Scholar
Keil, F. C., Stein, C., Webb, L., Billings, V. D., & Rozenblit, L. (2008). Discerning the division of cognitive labor: An emerging understanding of how knowledge is clustered in other minds. Cognitive Science, 32, 259–300.Google Scholar
Keller, J. (2005). In genes we trust: the biological component of psychological essentialism and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemler-Nelson, D. G., Egan, L. C., & Holt, M. B. (2004). When children ask, “What is it?” what do they want to know about artifacts? Psychological Science, 15(6), 384–389.Google Scholar
Kinzler, K. D. (2013). The development of language as a social category. In Banaji, M. R., & Gelman, S. A. (eds.), Oxford Series in Social Cognition and Social Neuroscience. Navigating the Social World: What Infants, Children, and Other Species Can Teach Us (pp. 314–317). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kinzler, K. D., & DeJesus, J. M. (2013). Northern = smart and Southern = nice: The development of accent attitudes in the United States. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 1146–1158.Google Scholar
Kinzler, K. D., Dupoux, E., & Spelke, E. S. (2007). The native language of social cognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 104, 12577–12580.Google Scholar
Kirby, S., Cornish, H., & Smith, K. (2008) Cumulative cultural evolution in the laboratory: An experimental approach to the origins of structure in human language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 105, 10681–10686.Google Scholar
Koenig, M. A., & Harris, P. L. (2005). Preschoolers mistrust ignorant and inaccurate speakers. Child Development, 76, 1261–1277.Google Scholar
Koenig, M. A., & Jaswal, V. K. (2011). Characterizing children’s expectations about expertise and incompetence: Halo or pitchfork effects? Child Development, 82, 1634–1647.Google Scholar
Labotka, D. & Gelman, S. A. (2019). The Effect of Register on Children’s Social Inferences about Addressees. Baltimore, MD: Society for Research in Child Development Biannual Meeting.Google Scholar
Lane, J. D., Harris, P. L., Gelman, S. A., & Wellman, H. M. (2014). More than meets the eye: Young children’s trust in claims that defy their perceptions. Developmental Psychology, 50, 865–871.Google Scholar
Lane, J. D., Wellman, H. M., & Gelman, S. A. (2013). Informants’ traits weigh heavily in young children’s trust in testimony and in their epistemic inferences. Child Development, 84, 1253–1268.Google Scholar
Leslie, S. J. (2013). Essence and natural kinds: When science meets preschooler intuition. Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 4, 108–165.Google Scholar
Leslie, S. J., Cimpian, A., Meyer, M., & Freeland, E. (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 347, 262–265.Google Scholar
Macnamara, J. (1987). A Border Dispute. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mandalaywala, T. M., Amodio, D. M., & Rhodes, M. (2018). Essentialism promotes racial prejudice by increasing endorsement of social hierarchies. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9, 461–469.Google Scholar
Markman, E. M. (1989). Categorization and Naming in Children: Problems in Induction. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J., & Szathmary, E. (1997). The Major Transitions in Evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Medin, D. (1989). Concepts and conceptual structure. American Psychologist, 44, 1469–1481.Google Scholar
Medin, D., Waxman, S., Woodring, J., & Washinawatok, K. (2010). Human-centeredness is not a universal feature of young children’s reasoning: Culture and experience matter when reasoning about biological entities. Cognitive Development, 25, 197–207.Google Scholar
Mervis, C. B., & Crisafi, M. A. (1982). Order of acquisition of subordinate-, basic-, and superordinate-level categories. Child Development, 53, 258–266.Google Scholar
Moya, C., Boyd, R., & Henrich, J. (2015). Reasoning about cultural and genetic transmission: Developmental and cross‐cultural evidence from Peru, Fiji, and the United States on how people make inferences about trait transmission. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7, 595–610.Google Scholar
Murphy, G. (2002). The Big Book of Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Olson, K. R., & Enright, E. A. (2018). Do transgender children (gender) stereotype less than their peers and siblings? Developmental Science, 21, e12606.Google Scholar
Orvell, A., Kross, E., & Gelman, S. A. (2017). How “you” makes meaning. Science, 355, 1299–1302.Google Scholar
Orvell, A., Kross, E., & Gelman, S. A. (2018). That’s how “you” do it: Generic you expresses norms in early childhood. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 165, 183–195.Google Scholar
Orvell, A., Kross, E., & Gelman, S. A. (2019). “You” and “I” in a foreign land: The persuasive force of generic-you. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 85, 103869.Google Scholar
Osherson, D. N., Smith, E. E., Wilkie, O., Lopez, A., & Shafir, E. (1990). Category-based induction. Psychological Review, 97, 185.Google Scholar
Ozturk, O., & Papafragou, A. (2016). The acquisition of evidentiality and source monitoring. Language Learning and Development, 12, 199–230.Google Scholar
Pagel, M. (2017). Darwinian perspectives on the evolution of human languages. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 24, 151–157.Google Scholar
Perner, J., Ruffman, T., & Leekam, S. R. (1994). Theory of mind is contagious: You catch it from your sibs. Child Development, 65, 1228–1238.Google Scholar
Perszyk, D. R., & Waxman, S. R. (2018). Linking language and cognition in infancy. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 231–250.Google Scholar
Pruden, S. M., Levine, S. C., & Huttenlocher, J. (2011). Children’s spatial thinking: Does talk about the spatial world matter? Developmental Science, 14, 1417–1430.Google Scholar
Reuter, T., Feiman, R., & Snedeker, J. (2018). Getting to no: Pragmatic and semantic factors in two‐ and three‐year‐olds’ understanding of negation. Child Development, 89, e364–e381.Google Scholar
Rhodes, M., & Gelman, S. A. (2009a). A developmental examination of the conceptual structure of animal, artifact, and human social categories across two cultural contexts. Cognitive Psychology, 59, 244–274.Google Scholar
Rhodes, M., & Gelman, S. A. (2009b). Five-year-olds’ beliefs about the discreteness of category boundaries for animals and artifacts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 920–924.Google Scholar
Rhodes, M., Gelman, S. A., & Karuza, J. C. (2014). Preschool ontology: The role of beliefs about category boundaries in early categorization. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15, 78–93.Google Scholar
Rhodes, M., Leslie, S. J., & Tworek, C. M. (2012). Cultural transmission of social essentialism. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 109, 13526–13531.Google Scholar
Rhodes, M., & Liebenson, P. (2015). Continuity and change in the development of category-based induction: The test case of diversity-based reasoning. Cognitive Psychology, 82, 74–95.Google Scholar
Rhodes, M., & Mandalaywala, T. M. (2017). The development and developmental consequences of social essentialism. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 8, e1437.Google Scholar
Roberts, S. O., & Gelman, S. A. (2015). Do children see in black and white? Children’s and adults’ categorizations of multiracial individuals. Child Development, 86, 1830–1847.Google Scholar
Roberts, S. O., Gelman, S. A., & Ho, A. K. (2017a). So it is, so it shall be: Descriptive regularities license children’s prescriptive judgments. Cognitive Science, 41, 576–600.Google Scholar
Roberts, S. O., Ho, A. K., & Gelman, S. A. (2017b). Group presence, category labels, and generic statements foster children’s tendency to enforce group norms. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 158, 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, S. O., Ho, A. K., & Gelman, S. A. (2019). The role of group norms in evaluating uncommon and negative behaviors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148, 374–387.Google Scholar
Roberts, S. O., Ho, A. K., Rhodes, M., & Gelman, S. A. (2017c). Making boundaries great again: Essentialism and support for boundary-enhancing initiatives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 1643–1658.Google Scholar
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382–439.Google Scholar
Sabbagh, M. A., & Baldwin, D. A. (2001). Learning words from knowledgeable versus ignorant speakers: Links between preschoolers’ theory of mind and semantic development. Child Development, 72, 1054–1070.Google Scholar
Sabbagh, M. A., & Henderson, A. M. (2007). How an appreciation of conventionality shapes early word learning. New Directions in Child and Adolescent Development, 115, 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salehuddin, K., & Winskel, H. (2009). An investigation into Malay numeral classifier acquisition through an elicited production task. First Language, 29, 289–311.Google Scholar
Schwab, J. F., Lew-Williams, C., & Goldberg, A. E. (2018). When regularization gets it wrong: Children over-simplify language input only in production. Journal of Child Language, 45, 1054–1072.Google Scholar
Shatz, M. (1987). Bootstrapping operations in child language. In Nelson, K. E., & Van Kleeck, A. (eds.), Children’s Language (Vol. 6, pp. 1–22). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Shatz, M., Tare, M., Nguyen, S. P., & Young, T. (2010). Acquiring non-object terms: The case for time words. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11, 16–6.Google Scholar
Shtulman, A., & Schulz, L. (2008). The relation between essentialist beliefs and evolutionary reasoning. Cognitive Science, 32, 1049–1062.Google Scholar
Shutts, K., Kenward, B., Falk, H., Ivegran, A., & Fawcett, C. (2017). Early preschool environments and gender: Effects of gender pedagogy in Sweden. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 162, 1–17.Google Scholar
Skinner, A. L., Meltzoff, A. N., & Olson, K. R. (2017). “Catching” social bias: Exposure to biased nonverbal signals creates social biases in preschool children. Psychological Science, 28, 216–224.Google Scholar
Smith, L. B., Colunga, E., & Yoshida, H. (2010). Knowledge as process: Contextually cued attention and early word learning. Cognitive Science, 34, 1287–1314.Google Scholar
Sobel, D. M., & Corriveau, K. H. (2010). Children monitor individuals’ expertise for word learning. Child Development, 81, 669–679.Google Scholar
Sobel, D. M., & Kushnir, T. (2013). Knowledge matters: How children evaluate the reliability of testimony as a process of rational inference. Psychological Review, 120, 779–797.Google Scholar
Susperreguy, M. I., & Davis-Kean, P. E. (2016). Maternal math talk in the home and math skills in preschool children. Early Education and Development, 27, 841–857.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. Language Typology and Syntactic Description, 3, 36–149.Google Scholar
Taumoepeau, M., & Reese, E. (2013). Maternal reminiscing, elaborative talk, and children’s theory of mind: An intervention study. First Language, 33, 388–410.Google Scholar
Taylor, M.G., Rhodes, M., & Gelman, S.A. (2009). Boys will be boys, cows will be cows: Children’s essentialist reasoning about human gender and animal development. Child Development, 80, 461–481.Google Scholar
Tillman, K. A., Marghetis, T., Barner, D., & Srinivasan, M. (2017). Today is tomorrow’s yesterday: Children’s acquisition of deictic time words. Cognitive Psychology, 92, 87–100.Google Scholar
Tworek, C. M., & Cimpian, A. (2016). Why do people tend to infer “ought” from “is”? The role of biases in explanation. Psychological Science, 27, 1109–1122.Google Scholar
Unger, L., & Fisher, A. V. (2019). Rapid, experience-related changes in the organization of children’s semantic knowledge. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 179, 1–22.Google Scholar
Unger, L., Fisher, A. V., Nugent, R., Ventura, S. L., & MacLellan, C. J. (2016). Developmental changes in semantic knowledge organization. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 146, 202–222.Google Scholar
Vasilyeva, N., Gopnik, A., & Lombrozo, T. (2018). The development of structural thinking about social categories. Developmental Psychology, 54, 1735–1744.Google Scholar
Waxman, S. R. (1990). Linguistic biases and the establishment of conceptual hierarchies: Evidence from preschool children. Cognitive Development, 5, 123–150.Google Scholar
Waxman, S. R., & Gelman, S. A. (2009). Early word-learning entails reference, not merely associations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 258–263.Google Scholar
Waxman, S. R., & Markow, D. B. (1995). Words as invitations to form categories: Evidence from 12- to 13-month-old infants. Cognitive Psychology, 29, 257–302.Google Scholar
Waxman, S., Medin, D., & Ross, N. (2007). Folkbiological reasoning from a cross-cultural developmental perspective: Early essentialist notions are shaped by cultural beliefs. Developmental Psychology, 43, 294–308.Google Scholar
Wellman, H. M. (2013). Universal social cognition. In Banaji, M., & Gelman, S. (eds.), Navigating the Social World: What Infants, Children, and Other Species Can Teach Us (pp. 69–74). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wellman, H. M., Fang, F., & Peterson, C. C. (2011). Sequential progressions in a theory‐of‐mind scale: Longitudinal perspectives. Child Development, 82, 780–792.Google Scholar
Wellman, H. M., & Liu, D. (2004). Scaling of theory‐of‐mind tasks. Child Development, 75, 523–541.Google Scholar
White, H., Jubran, R., Chroust, A., Heck, A., & Bhatt, R. S. (2018). Dichotomous perception of animal categories in infancy. Visual Cognition, 26, 764–779.Google Scholar
Williams, M. J., & Eberhardt, J. L. (2008). Biological conceptions of race and the motivation to cross racial boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 1033–1047.Google Scholar
Xu, F., & Carey, S. (1996). Infants’ metaphysics: The case of numerical identity. Cognitive Psychology, 30, 111–153.Google Scholar
Yamamoto, K., & Keil, F. (2000). The acquisition of Japanese numeral classifiers: Linkage between grammatical forms and conceptual categories. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 9, 379–409.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×